Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0

Regarding the key issues I've focused on with you, everyone else seems to understand the celestial teapot, they seem to understand scientific terminology, and they appear to have the ability to correctly interpret technical papers. For a recent example of your own problems in these areas there's your mistaken interpretation of the meaning of "correlate", a term everyone else seems to comprehend. As I've said at least a couple times before, you're not even close to suspension. and I don't understand why you keep raising the possibility. In this discussion with me you are exhibiting one of the qualities that others are finding so annoying and frustrating in that what I say doesn't appear to have any effect on you. It's as if I never said anything at all.Suspensions, in my experience, have a tendency to cause hard feelings, and this means they should be used judiciously and as sparingly as possible. My suggestions to you have been made in the hope of improving the quality of discussion and not because you were committing suspension-worthy offenses. Maybe it would help if you took a look at the Moderator Guidelines. They haven't been updated in a long while and our practices have evolved, but they're a generally good reflection of what moderators try to do here at EvC Forum. No one is picking on you. You recently raised moderation issues, so I responded. I also suggested that you take your complaints here, so thank you for doing that.As I've said before, a moderator is not a potted palm. Moderators bring their own knowledge and understanding to a discussion. I can't bring my moderation powers to bear upon people who have merely, in my estimation, accurately commented on the manner in which you're conducting yourself in defense of your position. The celestial teapot keeps coming up as fundamental to your misunderstanding of how one supports scientific positions with evidence, and you have yet to incorporate this into your thinking. Your belief that the absence of negative evidence represents positive evidence is a primary source of the scorn you keep complaining about.

Message 96

agreed

Contemptible.

I am wondering how long admin and the mods are going to allow him to insult, go off topic and basically break rules.If someone came into my house and started shitting all over the place I would be kicking them out permanently.Is this place so hard up for creos, that we have to resort to allowing this?If this is the future of the site then just close the doors.

Oh, I dunno, he makes quite a good point about how we should be exterminated. Teach the controversy!

I think he should be allowed to continue. After all, Biblical Christians and Creationists have no other recourse except invective, innuendo, misrepresentation and accusation.If we expect Creationists or Biblical Christians to follow the same rules as other we severely handicap their ability to communicate.

Not suggesting any action, but this seems to be an inappropriate comment to post in the Science Forum:

Of course anybody who denies that the Bible is God's own revelation to us is going to have a problem with starting from the Flood, but since it IS God's own revelation to us it would be foolish for science NOT to start there, because in that case the Biblical revelation IS evidence, the primary evidence, and all the rest of the evidence has to conform to it.

Message 175Maybe we need a "mixed" forum of some kind where these kinds of posts wouldn't be so out of place?

I think Theological Creationism and ID we designed for this purpose. And it was built for Faith too, if I recall correctly.

If this is now going to become an issue, after many months of making such references and its not being an issue, I'm simply going to leave. If creationists aren't allowed to reason as we reason about these things, there's no point in being here at all. And it was certainly no "rant," it was a perfectly straightforward comment.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

hey coyote.that business was directed at me, and i think i appropriately took a pass on it. we do have bible and religion/science fora here, and i've debated faith many, many times in the past. it doesn't particularly bother me at all, and in that particular forum, creation/evolution in the news, and the specific thread which is precisely about a debate that took place between a "bible assuming" standpoint and a scientific standpoint, i don't even think a reply about religion would have been out of place or off-topic. it was just a one liner, so whatever.

i don't think it was a rant, and i doubt it will be a problem. that's your standpoint, your point of view, your argument. and it's not exactly uncommon.the creationist argument, for most, is by definition mixing faith and science. and if we can't take the creationist argument here of all places, we're in bad shape.

I see no reason to suspect its going to become any form of issue.

I certainly don't want to make it any big issue, that's why I put "no action needed" in my post.But it is just unseemly that religion is being used as an argument to completely trash evidence, science, and the scientific method -- in the Science Forum.But, carry on.

it's not in the science forum. it's in the "side orders" forum.